Comparing Two Recent PFML Cases: Helpful Developments and Cautionary Reminders

The Massachusetts Paid Family and Medical Leave Act (PFML) reshaped the Commonwealth’s leave landscape, imposing broad obligations on employers and providing employees with job-protected, paid leave for qualifying family and medical reasons. As we have noted, courts and the Department of Family and Medical Leave continue to work through various outstanding issues surrounding the relatively new statute.

No Individual Liability Under PFML

A recent decision from the Business Litigation Session of the Suffolk Superior Court provides important clarity on one of those questions: who may be held liable for alleged PFML violations. In Laughlin v. BinStar, Inc. (Feb. 26, 2026), the court held that PFML liability is limited to the employer entity and does not extend to individual corporate actors. 

In this case, an employee sued his employer and various individuals alleging he was repeatedly asked to perform substantive job duties during his PFML leave. 

Two individual defendants – affiliates of an investor who served on the company’s board – moved to dismiss. The court granted their motion, concluding that the statute’s definition of “employer” – which is tied to the Commonwealth’s unemployment statute – does not encompass officers, directors, or agents.

In reaching its conclusion, the court contrasted the PFML with other Massachusetts employment statutes, such as the Wage Act, where the Legislature expressly imposed individual liability. The absence of similar language in the PFML was dispositive. Similarly, the court held that unlike the Massachusetts Fair Employment Practices Act, which expressly provides for “aiding and abetting” claims, the absence of such express language in the PFML statute meant that there could be no individual “aiding and abetting” liability under the PFML.  

But PFML Exposure Remains Significant

Although Laughlin limits who may be sued, it does nothing to reduce how much employers may ultimately pay if liability is established – and recent developments highlight the magnitude of that risk.

Last month, in another case a Suffolk Superior Court jury returned what is widely viewed as the first PFML jury verdict, awarding approximately $4.675 million against the employer. The jury did not find age discrimination, but did conclude the employer retaliated against the plaintiff for complaining of age discrimination and taking PFML leave. It awarded $600,000 in emotional distress damages, more than $75,000 in back pay, and $4 million in punitive damages.

This verdict illustrates several features of PFML risk: 

1. Statutory Presumption Period: The PFML statute provides that any adverse action taken during leave or within six months after an employee’s return from leave is presumed retaliatory, unless an employer can rebut that presumption with “clear and convincing” evidence (a heightened standard, as opposed to the usual “preponderance of the evidence” standard that would otherwise require the employee to prove retaliation).
2. Potential for Multiple Damages: PFML liability can impose treble damages on lost wages, benefits, and other remuneration for violations.

While the Laughlin case provides welcome clarity on the scope of potential defendants under PFML, it is clear from the recent jury verdict that the statute still carries significant financial exposure and a plaintiff-friendly framework. Employers should take the opportunity to ensure their PFML policies and practices are optimized to protect against potential PFML claims, including by: 

• Exercising discipline around communications with employees on leave.
• Training managers and other stakeholders on PFML restrictions.
• Documenting legitimate, non-retaliatory reasons for any employment actions taken during or shortly after leave.
• Auditing leave practices to ensure consistency across the organization.

Mintz’s Employment practice is available to assist with MA PFML questions or compliance concerns you may have.

Subscribe To Viewpoints